Readers' comments

An intresting corollary of one child in a society where males are preferred to females is a resulting imbalance and millions of yong maes who will never find a partner.This has unforseen implications.

While forced abortions may relieve pressure on the planet,the environment and Chinese communist planning it must surely be a pesonal tragedy for hundreds of millions and may in fact be a geater slaughter than the world wars Endlosung or Great leap forward and Stalins collectivisation of the kulaks combined.

Thank you for updating us on this policy. My understanding is that the policy has spared China around 400 million people. Isn't that a good thing for one of the world's most populous countries? America is the world's third populous country; wouldn't the US benefit by finding a way to encourage wymin to have less children? In other words, how can the US motivate wymin to be more reproductively responsible? The US could make all abortion legal (no exceptions), make birth control freely and readily available, it could end the child tax credit except for those who have only one child or adopt, and the US could give more or free college money to those wymin seeking an education through the doctoral level but choose to remain childfree up to that point. We can call these reproductively responsible wymin the Ladies of Macau. See more at http://vyctoryab.wix.com/xplr.

The US is at replacement rate, but one figure for its projected population in 2050 is 400m (today it's around 315m). The projected number depends on immigration, but with robots and 3-D printing, it could be that there won't be as much need for more hands, and as living standards rise worldwide, there will probably be less interest in moving between countries, so the population may plateau at not much more than it is today. In any case, we have plenty of arable land, drinkable water, and breathable air.

Realistically, a complete abolition of the one-child policy would cause the children from rural areas to gradually replace the population of the below-replacement-level cities, which wouldn't be a bad thing. In several generations, they'd probably be back up to a slightly higher level of birth rate.

The basis of your reasoning is mistaken. The one child policy has always been more strictly enforced in cities than rural areas, and in fact, was based on the reasoning that over-populated urban populations were net consumers of food while rural populations were producers, and the mistaken assumption this was holding back economic development (only true during famines, some policy-created). Furthermore, many (largely rural) ethnic minorities were totally exempt from the policy and chose larger, traditional families suited to their life styles, including nomadic living.

Secondly, it will not take a generation for excess rural populating to migrate to cities, it has already happened for the most part and now we find the (more intelligent) policy of migrating tax revenue to develop secondary cities and rural towns beginning to take root, making it less necessary for people to migrate to better themselves.

A survey from the largest and most modernized city in China is very insufficient to represent the fertility situation for the entire country. Rural China still owns a much higher fertility rate, and also population in rural region composes roughly one half of the figure.
So averaged out, China still hold a higher fertility rate than almost all European countries as well as Thailand, Malaysia and some other Southeast Asian countries.

May I ask where you got your data from? I could not find any sources that back your comparisons, although your main point remains true.

For example, I checked the CIA World Fact Book, which puts China's overall Total Fertility Rate at 1.55, which is 182nd out of 224 countries surveyed; extremely low, although you are correct in saying that the overall rate is not as apocalyptic as that of Shanghai.

This compares to a Malaysia's 2.64 and Thailand's 1.66, which are both significantly higher than China's rate; Malaysia very much so. Out of the countries with even lower fertility than China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea were the only three outside of Europe (several dependencies elsewhere in East Asia or in the Caribbean also had lower rates, but are not countries), but even then, a sizable portion of European countries had higher fertility rates than China, including but not limited to: Russia, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, and the UK.

Well, the reduction of the humans population would allow a better life for all, enabling a more environmental friendly civilization, and reducing the risks of conflicts and destruction, caused by poverty and social tensions, To find a gentle way to reduce the population should be a priority for every country, or at least, for the majority of the countries.

The One Child policy has been a huge success. China's economic growth hasn't been all that much higher than countries such as India (or even parts of Africa), but the chinese population has grown less, meaning the country has become richer.
The criticism against the One Child policy is in reality spill-over from the American far-right evangelical anti-abortion movement.

As a Chinese, I can say your comment is untrue and actually somewhat offensive. While certainly China needs to reduce its growth rate, the natural demographic shift resulting from industrialization was already bringing population growth under control when the policy was implemented.
Moreover, the policy violates some of the most basic human rights in existence. In our nation, we no longer have the right to decide for ourselves whether we have children or not, and violators, can, in extreme cases, have their children forcefully aborted.
Regardless of whether you believe that women have the right to have abortions (I believe that they do), it will never be morally justifiable to force a family who wishes to have a child to abort their baby. There is a reason proponents of abortion are "pro-choice"; they believe that abortions should be available to allow individuals to make their own decisions.
In China, there are abortions, but there is still no choice.

'the policy violates some of the most basic human rights in existence'

If there was no such a policy, there would have been no lifting so many people out of poverty in the last 30 years. For people in China, this is definitely a big sacrifice for one or two, or even more generations, but it is also for the good of China's future.

There is no denying there is abuse of power in implementing this policy, but those unfortunate things often happen in rural areas where local government officials act like feudal kings as they always do. This is a problem that should be addressed, but please do not mix it up with the policy itself.

That said, there are also lots of people who violate the law out of selfishness. Personally I know people who have two or more kids living in big cities. Some of them work as scavengers, some as entrepreneurs. In the country, they would have been caught and punished. But in large cities, they enjoy what they have, without being harassed in any way.

While this was initially true, it no longer is and unless the policy is changed it will ultimately produce regressive economic trends (and poverty) due to aging demographics.
At current rates, within a generation China will have a worse demographic mix than Japan today.
And as a Chinese, with a young daughter, that concerns me because [a] she could face increasing economic hardship as an adult [b] my wife and I won't be able to depend on her support in old age (so we aren't planning to do so).
But thanks for explaining why Chinese should have less human rights than other people, we always appreciate the advice and support.

Why are Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore never brought up when talking about the one child policy. They would seem to be the most apt as they form control groups for what happens to Chinese people in absence of the policy.

The answer? The policy is useless. Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong have had their fertility tank. This is because people got wealthier and more educated. China is now is where Taiwan was wealth wise when the Taiwanese birthrate dropped below replacement. So China could get rid of the one child policy and no one would have more babies.

China's rural and urban populations are equal. The rural one is falling because they are all moving into the cities. The urban population is increasing for the same reason. But this increase is due to already extant people moving from place to place not any new population.

"Why are Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore never brought up when talking about the one child policy. They would seem to be the most apt as they form control groups for what happens to Chinese people in absence of the policy. "

Just because HK, Singapore and Taiwan are populated by Chinese it does not make them apt control groups. Race is only one of many variables.

They are good control groups because China is explicitly trying to converge towards them. The racial aspect is just what makes Taiwan a slightly better example than say, South Korea. Or to put it another way, where is there a better control group?

First, race does not make those societies in question a single object that China can try to converge toward. It would pull itself apart if it really tried to diverge itself towards them respectively.
There are no good control groups, and being better than, say, South Korea, does not make them useful as such.

China population density still low, compare to even country like England. It is a big country, so it look like it has lots of population, but actually it is not. China need to end the policy immediately and family should be encourage to have at least 3 children.

Though the Chinese population density may be low, when you compare to population to the amount of arable land, China is actually overpopulated. In a class I am taking about market development in China at City University in Hong Kong, my teacher told me that one of the reasons for the one child policy was to ensure that China could be agriculturally self-sustainable in the future.

3 children would be disastrous. Maybe you should refer to actual population and economic statistics to see where such a high fertility rate gets countries economically.

I agree one child policy has outlived it's usefulness and is now regressive so should end, but 3 children per family average does not work in today's world, so maybe you should reconsider your position based on facts.

Your teacher is absolutely correct - in China, less than 15% of the land is arable, while for India, the figure is 50%. Thus, in absolute acreage, India has more arable land than China.

As I often say, deserts, yardangs, steppe, mountains, rock formations and icy plateaus are pretty to look at if you are a tourist, but is absolutely worthless for food production (unless you are a pastoralist for some of the above listed features).

China's fertility rate is far higher than in Thailand or Russia, and much higher than Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Cuba, Japan or South Korea.
.
China's fertility rate, from an internationally high base, is likely to fall further regardless of whether one child policy is abolished, as the population increasingly urbanises, as standards of education rise, as middle class aspirations become more ubiquitous, as housing remains exorbitantly expensive relative to wages, as the opportunity cost of having kids (in career, in social life, in material living standard) only gets bigger, etc.
.
In a few decades, China's fertility will probably move closer to that of Japan, Romania, Poland or South Korea today (i.e. significantly downwards).

Baha, what the hell happened in Thailand in '66 to make 2 extra children appear for every woman
Looking at that data, the world is at a similar level to Europe in the 60's, during the 'baby boom'. Hmm.

In Thailand, that was before the (AIDs associated) government push for everyone to use condoms.
.
The far more interesting case id Romania - the birth rate suddenly doubled in 1967 (step impulse). Here's an account:http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn318coho...
.
There are many fertility rate numbers which are really surprising for anybody that hasn't looked at the data before/ go against common stereotypes:

- Turkey's fertility rate is bang on the replacement rate: 2.09

- Iran, while Islamic (and with Islamist government too), has fertility far before below replacement: 1.67

- Brazil, while massive (200 million people) and still poor (and still seen as a sex tourism destination) has a below replacement fertility rate of 1.83

- most of the middle east, while high today, is rapidly heading for replacement (or perhaps below replacement?) fertility rates in the next 15 years:
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:DZA&dl=en&hl=en&q=algeria%20fertility%20rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DZA:TUN:ARE:QAT:MAR:LBN:EGY:IRQ:SAU:WBG&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

America's fertility in 2011 & 2012, while remaining far above average "European" rates, has quite suddenly fallen below UK, Irish, French or Scandinavian levels. (Is it the recession? Is it the collapse of immigration from Mexico? Is it the recently immigrated Hispanic population becoming more "American"? Is it a permanent shift or is it a blip?)
.
Africa deserves its reputation for double digit fertility rates and booming populations making it impossible for any kind of investment in education, infrastructure or per capita development (and creating far too many angry unemployed young men, with resulting political instability and susceptibility to political insurgencies & massacres). Yet, this is changing, with some prominent countries leading the pack - here are the best performers (the ones with fertility now below 4, or those below 5 with the rate falling by half a point per decade or faster):
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:ZAF&dl=en&hl=en&q=south%20africa%20fertility%20rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:ZAF:NAM:ZWE:BWA:ETH:GHA:MUS:MRT:MOZ:SWZ:LSO&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Shaun39
.
Two things.
.
I suggest the use if a URL shortening website. That way they might hyperlink easier and wont play havoc with the display on some devices. Try tinyurl.
.
Secondly Chima's TFR decline is still happening and will hence drop further. The countries with extremely low TFRs you used in your example; almost all show an uptick. Also the extremely high and continuing sex ratio imbalance will actually compound and cause the TFR to decline further and faster. Latest estimates put the excess males in China at 35 million.
.
The last Chinese census showed that many projections regarding population had been overly optimistic. China has a habit of doing things bigger and faster than others so it will be interesting if it does the same with population.
.
Also another idea that I have never fleshed out much but wonder about is the effect of a much higher elderly population and the massive increase in longevity that is occurring. Without a welfare state, the burden of looking after parents and grandparents will fall on those in their prime child-rearing years. But will the increased cost this entails, one couple financially supporting four parents and up to eight grandparents, mean that the cost of a child is even more unaffordable?
.
With China's move away from state owned enterprises, more and more of the cost of the elderly is being placed solely on their families. I don't think this factor has fully impacted the TFR yet.
.
I estimate a massive drop in the TFR over the next decade.

The CIA World Factbook places Thailand and Russia higher with its ranking of total fertility:
175 Thailand 1.66 2012 es
178 ranking, Russia with 1.61 2012 est.
`
China came in at:
182 China 1.55 2012 est.
`
`
Spain is a little lower - at the 192 spot with 1.48; Cuba is a little more lower - at the 194 with 1.45

Yep - World Bank (numbers I used above), CIA & Eurostat all have slightly different numbers. That might be because of methodological differences or sampling differences.
.
I guess the more important point is that China's fertility rate is not especially low, and could easily fall much further (indeed, probably will fall much further) even without 1-child policy.
.
North-Eastern China is about 40% richer than Thailand (& growing much faster). And the North East of China is where the rest of the Chinese population is rapidly migrating.

N.B. in case you're interested/ didn't know, the normal convention for estimating fertility is based on a hypothetical generation that lived its entire life in the present year.
.
So, across the population of the country as a whole, in a given year, for women in every age group (1 year olds, 2 year olds... 23 year olds, 24 year olds...), they estimate (1) the probability of dying at that age (from the proportion which did in the given year) and (2) the probability of giving birth to live offspring at that age.
.
Then for a hypothetical unit population of females, living as an entire generation in the single year where the death & birth probabilities were sampled, we essentially run down from year zero, using sample birth & death probabilities:
.
females <= 1.0
offspring <= 0.0
Loop:
{
offspring <= offspring + females*birth_probability
females <= females * survival probability
}
End Loop
.
In order to work out the expected number of offspring.
.
The problem here, is that if there is a big societal change going on (e.g. women are in the process of switching to having their children later, but still want to have just as many - or perhaps even more - kids), then the birth probabilities at older ages suggested by samples today might nor reflect the birth probabilities of younger women when they do reach that age.
.
Worse, if such a shift has happened, then we can't even infer the actual number of births (or actual number of births per women) using a long series of single-year fertility rates (not even approximately - we could easily get the number of births wrong by 10-20% over a 50 year period).
.
So, the idea of "number of live births an average women has" seems like a nice/ intuitive idea, the reality is that our estimate is not perfect, and probably contains a systematic bias (of varying proportion across countries).

I wonder how many of those saying that they want 2 (or even) one child were among the men who will be unable to find a wife, thanks to the gender imbalance that previous generations of parents forced on China? It might have been more to the point to have asked only women how many children they wanted.

I'd be curious to see an analysis of how such a critically low fertility rate will effect China's future population and all the rest- economy, government, foreign policy, military... if their fertility rate doesn't basically double they'll be seeing a stiff decline in population in the next few decades.

China actually has a high fertility rate, compared to most developed countries.
.
China's population will fall by nearly a third over the next hundred years, based on present fertility rates (and that's assuming a very conservative life expectancy rise to 85 over that time period).
.
By contrast, Germany's & Japan's populations will (absent mass immigration) fall to about a fifth of their present size over the next hundred years.

* and remarkably, absent mass immigration, South Korea's population will fall to less than half its present level in just 50 years.
.
Now (or some time in the next 5 years) is probably a good time to go to war with North Korea and reunify the country.

The US and France aren't growing, but they're reproducing themselves, and most of northern Europe is within sight of doing so. It seems counter-intuitive somehow to worry about Asia dying out before Europe, but that's what the numbers suggest could happen.

Now, it is possible that East Asia might shrink demographically faster than Europe in future. But Europe has been shrinking faster in the past decades.

Another interesting point is the US fertility fall (at 2011 rates, America's native population will shrink 16% in 3 generations) - is this merely an outcome of recession? Is it a blip? Is this related to migration change?